A633.9.3.RB – Polyarchy Reflections
This week
we are reminded that most leadership models have the assumption of oligarchy –
a few leaders apply leadership over many followers. If polyarchy is rapidly
replacing the old oligarchy assumptions, does this make these old leadership
models redundant? We are then asked to reflect on traditional leadership from
the perspective of complex adaptive leadership and address the implications and
how they will affect each of us as leaders in the future? Finally, we are to
consider how this will impact future strategy.
To begin
with, I honestly have to question just how “fast” old oligarchical assumptions
are being replaced by polyarchical leadership model in most organizations. I
believe this is an exception rather than the rule. Even though organizations
are becoming more complex, there are many companies that still cling to the old
mannerisms. Over time, we hope they will realize the value of looking at how to
operate differently in order to be more effective and competitive. However, it
takes a long while to turn a large ship and, I believe, is what educational
programs such as ours are all about.
Nevertheless,
some organizations evaluating the benefit of moving towards a different way
dealing with their complexities may begin to merge certain concepts and ideas
into their current system. Obolensky (2010) noted that there are more
traditional leadership models that do quite well in incorporating complex
adaptive leadership such as Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership,
Hersey/Blanchard’s Situational Leadership, and John Adair’s Task-Team-Individual
model; then the newer models such as Collin’s Level 5 Leadership and
Badaracco’s Quiet Leadership take things to a new level of understanding
by their “new ways of looking at leadership” (p. 201).
Therefore,
the answer is no – the old models are not redundant because it is possible to
overlay new concepts onto them in order to maximize the benefits of operating
from a place of complex adaptive leadership. Just as the example in Appendix B
of our textbook Obolensky (2010) lays out Adair’s Task-Team-Individual model
and how it nicely dovetails with complex adaptive leadership model – this was a
fine example. Moreover, Obolensky (2010) comments, “An understanding of how
polyarchy can work will differ in each organization, as each one has its own
experience and unique perspective. But as has been shown, traditional
leadership models and practices can be seen in a new light” (p. 206).
It is
helpful for each of us – as either emerging or current leaders – to understand
that if we are able to apply the Four + Four principles (as we learned in
Chapter 6 with the 4-plus-4 model for leading complexity) in any given situation,
then we will be better equipped to deal with paradox, uncertainty, and
complexity, regardless of which leadership model we are attempting to execute.
Also, as Obolensky (2010) points out, “The key difference is that under a
polyarchy the leader ensures the process rather than doing the
process, which is implied under an oligarchic assumption” (p. 203).
Future
strategies will be impacted by the understanding that in order to thrive in the
newer and fast emerging complex environments, the sooner we can embrace the
concept the better. Understanding organizations, people involved with the
organizations, as well as the process of operating within the organization
involves a dynamic process that requires a new perspective. Obolensky (2007)
posits, “Polyarchy does not assume an overthrow of leaders, or an eradication
of oligarchy. It is an evolutionary step on from oligarchy, even though it may
seem revolutionary. If we assume oligarchy (traditional leadership) has been
around for thousands of years, and this was preceded by anarchy (chaos), then
polyarchy can be seen as an evolutionary synthesis of the two.”
Now that
we are more familiar with this term and process, we must put into practice what
we have learned and try to approach our roles as leaders – and yes, even our
roles as followers – in a fresh light. On a final note, Obolensky (2007)
commented in an essay he wrote that he does not see leadership as “something
done solely by leaders but as a seemingly chaotic dynamic involving all.
Leadership does not have to be, nor perhaps should it be, the function of
someone specifically designated as holding formal office.” It is like that now
that we know there is a better way to lead, we are almost obligated to put it
into practice and see it through.
References
Obolensky, N. (2007). Chaos Leadership and Polyarchy –
countering leadership stress? Essay for University of Exeter Centre for
Leadership Studies: Extended Leadership Essay. Retrieved from https://business-school.exeter.ac.uk/documents/papers/leadership/395.pdf
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd
Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.
No comments:
Post a Comment